06/28/2009 04:58:33 AM EST

Obama offers Miranda to terrorists.

posted by Hugh Everett

Carmen Miranda

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Here’s an update on minute-by-minute change you can believe in.

President Barack Obama has been very clear on the subject of extending Miranda Rights and jury trials to enemy combatants taken captive on the field of battle.

But Congressman Mike Rogers recently claimed that Obama quietly ordered Miranda for al Qaeda.

“White House press secretary Robert Gibbs shrugged off questions on this topic by saying that the report of Miranda warnings being given to enemy combatants in Afghanistan "didn't surprise” him.”

A rabidly partisan organization that calls itself Media Matters tried to claim that “Bush did it too!”.

But the Bush Administration handled detainees quite differently. According to the LA Times: "Regardless of where any bad guy is caught, we want the bureau to be in a position to put charges on them," the official said, adding that the Bush administration's emphasis on CIA and military operations often marginalized the FBI -- especially when it came to interrogating suspects.” That means no cops, no robbers, no Miranda.
 
Senator John Cornyn, a former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, pressed the Obama Administration for details.

The House of Representatives recently passed a proposal to prohibit Miranda Rights for terrorists taken prisoner on the battlefield.
< House passes biggest mistake in US history!!! | THANK YOU RONALD REAGAN... YOU FUCK UP!!!! >

Poll

In extending Miranda to al Qaeda, President Obama could be classified as:
A hypocrite. 0%
A liar. 0%
A flip flopper. 12%
A strict constructionist. 0%
A guy who believes that enemy combatants should be afforded constitutional rights. 87%

Votes: 8
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Obama offers Miranda to terrorists. | 27 comments (27 topical, 3 hidden)
Its like Da ja Vue all over again (5.00 / 2)
The  hot links, the rhetoric,  the angle, even the picture .

Rapidly partisan

Field of battle

The poll questions

is the vacation over?
Has the cohiba been smoked?

I am assuming that mess of hotlinks and copied quotes is supposed to boil down that Obama lied

He lied about dont ask dont tell too.

I take the good with the bad

He is eons better than anything the conservatives could come up with

He is a breath of fresh air for the world

If the lie is that he is giving people being detained  by the U.S miranda rights.

I view that as a good lie.

The conservatives seem to think that because someone is  detained they are automatically guilty.

Unless of course its one of them caught up  in a underage sex or money laundering scandal.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 06/29/2009 12:14:10 PM EST

Perfect (none / 0)
If there was a rating of ten, your post would get it.

There is at least some good with Obama.  Republicans are no good.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/29/2009 06:44:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what's the point? (none / 1)
of having the US constitution if were not going to follow the law when we detain individuals? If we don't follow our own law then we have broken the law and we do not live up to the values that we so try to protect.  

Obama has made a mistake though and the ACLU is going after him about it.  Not releasing detainees that can not be prosecuted he's confining indefinitely.  Which I find wrong, if there's good reason behind it, then fine, but he's walking on water right now and if he doesn't be careful he will fall.  People who are against granting Miranda rights to detainees (possible terrorist), then they don't believe in the US constitution and they're hypocrites.  Because whenever the US is holding an individual WE HAVE TO grant that individual the rights of a human being that we place on our own citizens because that is the core value system that the US created for people around the world.  A fair trial and a chance to defend yourself without prejudice or interference.

by Erauprcwa on 06/28/2009 05:52:36 AM EST

Oooohh, them nasties at Media Matters (none / 0)

Do they get under the Righties skin by pointing out incinsistencies and hypocrisy?

Good.

Truth hurts, huh?

BTW - if you pick someone up on a battlefield, they ain't a "terrorist." THey are a POW. And they deserve all the rights accorded to them under Geneva.

This is America - love it or leave it.....

by MedfordTim on 06/28/2009 10:44:34 AM EST

Reading criminals their rights. (none / 0)
What an Anti-American concept.

"The eyelid is a joke"

by richardshort2001 on 06/28/2009 11:03:35 AM EST

Lucky us. (none / 0)
First this weekend was SVX77, and now we've got "Hugh Everett".

Oh, well.  I still see people driving around town with Bush/Cheney bumperstickers, like they think those two did a good job.

When I heard that Obama had ordered that detainees be given Miranda warnings, I felt relieved.  I think it was necessary only because we're not treating them as POWs, and I don't believe it is an adequate substitute for treating them as POWs (I'm not sure, but I think that might be a better way to go), but it definitely indicates that Obama has more respect for the Constitution than his predecessor.

Now, if Obama would just prove that he has more respect for the Constitution than Bush by putting Bush in prison, I'd be a happy guy.  Then everyone, including Obama, would know that there are consequences for breaking the law.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/28/2009 02:46:15 PM EST

First indication he's a wingnut (none / 0)
Is him railing against verbatim, in context quotes. Conservatives hate being fully quoted in context. It exposes their true nature in a way they'd rather not have made public.

Not for nothing, but what is wrong with giving these rights to "terrorists"? What is there to be scared of allowing alleged criminals to have rights such as:

Knowing what they are charged with?

Having an attorney to help them defend themselves in court?

Not being denied a trial for their supposed crimes?

Not receiving cruel and inhumane treatment - even before they are tried for their alleged crimes?

You need to try and think about these things a bit more before you post your next talking point.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/28/2009 04:50:04 PM EST

Extra bonus points (none / 0)
If you can explain why the same rights we gave to the Nazis for the Nuremberg Trials can't be extended to some supposed terrorists? Why were we able to extend these basic rights to the people who very nearly took over the world but you are terrified to give them to some illiterate 3rd world goatherders?

Why are RWnuts always so scared of everything?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/28/2009 04:57:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I enjoy sharing knowledge. (1.80 / 4)
It makes me feel like the Robin Williams character in Dead Poets Society.

”If you pick someone up on a battlefield, they ain't a "terrorist." They are a POW. And they deserve all the rights accorded to them under Geneva.”
Nobody is denying Al Qaeda rights accorded to them under Geneva. But Geneva does not guarantee an enemy combatant a jury trial in a U.S. court of law.

”I think it was necessary only because we're not treating them as POWs, and I don't believe it is an adequate substitute for treating them as POWs.”
POWs traditionally remain in safely ensconced in detention until the end of hostilities. They are entitled to nothing more than food, shelter, recreation, and letters home.
  
“What is there to be scared of allowing alleged criminals to have rights such as: Knowing what they are charged with? Having an attorney to help them defend themselves in court? Not being denied a trial for their supposed crimes? Not receiving cruel and inhumane treatment - even before they are tried for their alleged crimes?”
When you shoot at a Marine in Afghanistan, you’re not a criminal in the eyes of Geneva, you’re an enemy combatant. The number of enemy combatants imprisoned in Bagram is growing. Its not really practical (or logical) to bring them to the U.S. and give them a trial in criminal court before a jury of their peers. They don’t have any peers over here, because of a little known fact in Liberal Land. Listen closely as I whisper the reason why: (Taliban warriors are not citizens of the United States.)

“What’s the point of having the US constitution if were not going to follow the law when we detain individuals? Whenever the US is holding an individual WE HAVE TO grant that individual the rights of a human being that we place on our own citizens because that is the core value system that the US created for people around the world: a fair trial and a chance to defend yourself without prejudice or interference. “
Laws pertaining to enemy combatants are different than laws pertaining to shoplifters. These two separate, distinct groups are not entitled to the same rights. I know this to be true, because it was so decreed by the world’s foremost authority on constitutional law.

“Explain why the same rights we gave to the Nazis for the Nuremberg Trials can't be extended to some supposed terrorists?”
The same rights can be extended to terrorists who are facing punishment in the form of death penalty or prison sentences. But low level terrorist “soldiers” will receive the same treatment as German POWs, or Japanese POWs, or North Vietnamese POWs, or North Korean POWs. They will be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities.

Here's a special invitation for Miss P. to savor the recent article on Obama’s Indefinite Detentions in Stalag POW Camps. In the words of Sergeant Schultze: “I know nothing!”

by Hugh Everett on 06/28/2009 08:35:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You should re-read your posts before clicking (4.50 / 1)
"Nobody is denying Al Qaeda rights accorded to them under Geneva.

Since you seem to be proposing that as a true statement, is there any reason for us to treat you as if you have any credibility at all?

The United States of America has tortured people to death.  You seek to ignore those crimes and put a political party into office that would continue them.  You are an accomplice to crimes against humanity.  You will find that you get little respect here.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/28/2009 10:51:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you say "credibility"? (1.80 / 3)
“Since you seem to be proposing that as a true statement, is there any reason for us to treat you as if you have any credibility at all?”

The guy who is sitting on the hot seat is named Barack Obama. Not George Bush. Not Bill Clinton. Not you. Not me. My credibility is no more on trial here than is yours.

Right now Obama is taking actions that are seemingly in conflict:
 
He is mirandizing battlefield captives, while detaining captives indefinitely without Habeas.

He is talking about closing Gitmo, while incarcerating many more POWs at Bagram.

He is talking about civil liberties, while expanding warrantless wiretaps.

He is expanding military tribunals after calling them a “legal black hole”.

He was for releasing the torture photos before he was for covering up the torture photos.

He was against “The Surge” in Iraq, but he kept Secretary “Bill” Gates in charge to implement “The Surge” in Afghanistan, since the former action was such an overwhelming success.

You need me to participate in this forum, in order to lend credibility to your board. You don’t have to thank me for posting, but it might be the polite thing to do.

by Hugh Everett on 06/29/2009 12:00:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry (5.00 / 1)
But I just can't get past the fact that you lied.  You have nothing to say that interests me.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/29/2009 05:56:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you for being here (none / 0)
just kidding.

You're not lending credibility to anyone here.  As you might notice, not many people here are huge fans of barack obama.  However, not many people here(yourself excluded, of course) are huge fans of misinformation and lies.  

Now, Miranda rights to "terrorists" is not productive, but until you can prove they are terrorists, they aren't terrorists.  These people could just be taken from random places that might be somewhere near an actual "terrorist" camp.  SO WHAT?  That doesn't prove anything, and you can't hold them indefinitely unless they actually are "terrorists"  Of course, the previous administration overused the word terrorist so much that it's come to mean anyone who the republicans don't like.  But I'll let go of that.  

Now your credibility is on trial because of the questionable things you have been saying.  Like you've been saying that we've been treating all prisoners of war like the geneva convention says to treat them.  Either that is a downright lie, or you could say that those people just aren't POWs.  In which case, what are they?  They are ALLEGED CRIMINALS and need to be treated as such, for example not being detained w/o habeus corpus and given a trial of their peers.  Either way, I find little that makes you more interesting than joe the unlicensed plumber, or more credible.

So drop the condescending attitude, stop lying/bending the truth/whatever else you want to call it, and maybe the people here might want to actually have an intelligent conversation with you.

by birdboy1 on 06/29/2009 12:43:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We accidentally did that too (none / 0)
Obama is still torturing.

 I want all the torture prosecuted, no matter who took part in it.

by birdboy1 on 06/28/2009 11:16:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What? (4.00 / 1)
So if they are POW's, they get all the rights accorded to them by the geneva convention


I know it's kinda long, just read part II and you will realize that the alleged are not being treated like prisoners of war.  


POWs traditionally remain in safely ensconced in detention until the end of hostilities. They are entitled to nothing more than food, shelter, recreation, and letters home.
Read part II of the geneva convention above.  They are entitled to a few other things, like NOT BEING HURT OR INTIMIDATED

by birdboy1 on 06/28/2009 11:43:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Correction (4.00 / 1)
you will realize that the alleged terrorists are not being treated like prisoners of war.  

by birdboy1 on 06/28/2009 11:46:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hugh Everett (none / 0)
You wouldn't happen to be KenTX's newest sockpuppet?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/28/2009 08:54:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The general confusion (none / 0)
Stems from posting things you've heard from others but you don't actually understand yourself.

Please feel free to try and explain what you think you mean by "Miranda" and how it in any way affects the prosecution of alleged terrorists?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/29/2009 11:21:57 AM EST

Obama offers Miranda to terrorists. | 27 comments (27 topical, 3 hidden)
 Display: